Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the bogus-patents-for-all dept.

Patents 121

New submitter Rideak writes with this excerpt from CNet about an ITC ruling against Motorola in their case against Apple for violating a few of their proximity sensor patents: "The U.S. International Trade Commission today ended Motorola's case against Apple, which accused the iPhone and Mac maker of patent infringement. In a ruling (PDF), the ITC said that Apple was not violating Motorola's U.S. patent covering proximity sensors, which the commission called 'obvious.' It was the last of six patents Motorola aimed at Apple as part of an October 2010 complaint."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot refuses to protect me from abuse... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43520889)

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 230 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 230++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcac

Slashdot refuses to protect us from your abuse... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521131)

You're wasting your time, dumbass, we're all tired of your fucking godamn motherfucking wall of text.

Re:Slashdot refuses to protect me from abuse... ap (-1, Offtopic)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#43521159)

who's protecting slashdot from this garbage?

Re:Slashdot refuses to protect me from abuse... ap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521805)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS , & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - []


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - []
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - []


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - []


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - []


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - []


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - []
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - []


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - []


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - []




KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - []


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - []


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - []


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - []


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - []


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - []


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - []


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - []


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - []


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - []


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - []


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - []


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - []


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - []


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - []


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - []


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - []


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - []


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - []


[to apk] You are the most consistently annoying creature on the internet. There are people worse than you, just like cancer is worse than psoriasis, but you're more like the latter: pervasive, annoying, and always cropping up when one has mostly forgotten about it. You are that indeterminate, continuous itching that slowly erodes someone's mood until they consider cutting off a part of themselves just to stop it for a while. And like psoriasis, you're auto-immune and not fully understood by science. Slashdot continuously makes it worse by scratching that itch over and over again. It's not smart. It just encourages the disease. But everybody's got a limit to their patience. There is no cure for you. But at least, when slashdot dies, you will die with it, and there will be peace. - []


Alexander Peter KowalskI and anyone arguing with him are insane. I saw their crazy tirades once and googled his name, and HOLY SHIT. This guy has mini battle raging all over many sites for some of the most inane shit you can think of. He meticulously catalogs the people who have crossed him and works to MAKE SURE everyone understands they are fools. Now, they well be fools, but by his meticulous and obsessive actions Kowalski (APK) has proved without a shadow of doubt his absolutE insanity. I haven't even argued with this guy so don't think I'm part of these internet crusades. All this I've found by googling his name. The trove of flaming and incomprehensible obsessive agression is humongous and both funny, and pathetic to varying intense degrees. Just google if you are curious about the kinds of crazy that are out there." - []


I'm convinced APK is serious, he has got battles raging everywhere, meticulously catalogued, yet he thinks this is proof of his knowledge and experience, not obsessive insanity. And making that point doesn't make him reconsider, it incites him. He also seems to think what looks like many multiples of people saying this are one or a few people who are out to get him. Just read my post and google Alexander Peter Kowalski. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski ubuntu touched my junk liberally. he strapped me in to his HOSTS file and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me - []


[to apk] Hey man, I know this is important to you, but maybe you should talk to someone outside of the internet about it? I mean, you sound really batshit insane. - []


[to apk] You're an AC and you say you have impersonators? - []


ghod bless you APKtroll for bringing some much needed balance and reason to this thread! - []


[to apk] APK, you suck. Go die in a fire. The hosts file in Windows is a _terrible_ way to filter internet traffic. - []


I'm replying just so you'll add me to your quote list. - []


Best troll post, anywhere, ever. Well done. - []


[to apk] Just please stop the spamming. Get yourself a real life and a girl. That helps most against your troubles. Or at least a cat. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalksi's low intelligence, extreme narcissism, and histrionic personality make him unsuited for anything but menial labor. - []


Fact: it takes amost 2 hours for windows to load a 645,000 lines HOSTS file into the DNS cache. While loading, all DNS queries are blocked. That is neither fast nor efficient. - []


[to apk] it is very disconcerting to see the sort of writing style you introduce as it is a very harsh contrast to the "normal" -- which goes even for non-native English speakers. The amount of fervor you utilize to make this point comes off to me as insanity. You seem to imply there is an unexplained, even conspiratorial effort at Microsoft for sabotaging your preferred host file entry method. You also seem to think you have a reputation which is at stake, and I assure you, aside from your raving posts, I have never heard of you before. The time-cube APK imposter you mention appears to be (at least to me) an adequate parody of your abrasive writing and argument style. The fact that you seem to take such excessive offense to this parody further strengthens the lehman's perception of your insanity. - []




Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS []
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

Tech can be obvious (4, Insightful)

linatux (63153) | about a year ago | (#43520901)

but round corners can't?

Re:Tech can be obvious (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521005)

Design and utility are separate things. Karma whoring with a tired meme eventually has to stop.

Rounded corners are not a technical invention; they're part of a distinctive design. No one is prohibited from using rounded corners.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521055)

Bullshit, rounded corners are not "distinctive". Apple never, ever should get any protection whatsoever from using them.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43521313)

what part of "part of" do you not understand?

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about a year ago | (#43522673)

This recursion thing is hard!

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

jbengt (874751) | about a year ago | (#43524211)

oops, mis-moderated

Re:Tech can be obvious (3, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43521361)

Way to knee-jerk react without actually reading what he said.

He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand. Design patents work by specifying a number of claims for a particular design, which are taken as a whole when determining if infringement occurred. There is no design patent just for rounded corners. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. What you'll find is that rounded corners are always just one claim among many in the design patents in which they're mentioned, and so they are never considered in a vacuum when determining whether a product infringes on the design patent.

To put it a bit differently, Coca-Cola has a design patent covering their iconic bottle shape, yet no one is suggesting that Coca-Cola has a patent on all curved bottles just because their design patent includes curves as one of its claims. To infringe, you'd have to include not just curves in your bottle design, but curves that matched the other claims and diagrams presented in their design patent before you'd be infringing on their patent.

Similarly, Apple's infamous iPhone patent that included rounded corners as one of its claims also included a number of other claims as well (I believe it also included a flat glass front, a thin aluminum bezel, a round button near the bottom, specified that the rounded corners had to be uniform in shape, and had a few more items as well). For infringement to take place, ALL of those claims would be considered together, rather than just the uniform rounded corners claim.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1, Troll)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#43521751)

He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand. Design patents work by specifying a number of claims for a particular design, which are taken as a whole when determining if infringement occurred. There is no design patent just for rounded corners. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. What you'll find is that rounded corners are always just one claim among many in the design patents in which they're mentioned, and so they are never considered in a vacuum when determining whether a product infringes on the design patent.

Challenge accepted: . Design Patent 504,889 -- which lists Steve Jobs and Apple design guru Jonathan Ive, among others, as the "inventors" -- is a claim for a rectangular electronic device with rounded corners. Thatâ(TM)s right, Apple is claiming control over rectangles. The full claim is only 2 lines long, and amazingly broad -- Apple is claiming all devices with the basic shape shown here. []

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43521845)

Did you actually look at the patent you're referencing [] ? Because I did before I made my last post. And what you'll see is that they made a claim for the ornamental design depicted in the series of diagrams they made. I.e. Something that looks just like those diagrams. So, while rounded corners are indeed an aspect of the claim, the design patent also includes the flat back and front, the curved surface that ties the front to the back, and the fact that the corners are all uniform in shape and circular rather than oval shaped.

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522829)

On of the problem with including rounded corners in the design patent is that rounded corners is a function you implement to solve a problem, not something you add to create a distinctive look.
If I buy a perfectly rectangular empty black plastic box it will have rounded corners, it will be easier to handle in manufacturing, feels better when you hold it and won't scratch any surfaces.
The round corner attribute should not have been allowed to be part of the design patent, it forces competitors to create worse designs, not better, to be able to compete.

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43524081)

It looks like an Etch-A-Sketch without knobs. Thinner chassis, smaller bevel, and different radius of corner rounding do not add up to a unique design.

Re:Tech can be obvious (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43521907)

He never said that rounded corners were distinctive. He said that they were a part of a distinctive design, which gets at a fundamental principle of design patents that you seem to not understand.

I think he understands perfectly: Here's the 5 page filing [] for the patent. The only thing that separates it in terms of appearance is that it has rounded corners. But I mean, seriously, if what you've done is glued a computer to a touchscreen panel, how many design options are there? Round corners. Square corners. It's still a fucking rectangle, because that's how every touchscreen in mass-production today is shaped. There's only a select few form-factors that make sense when the primary (indeed, only) human interface is a touch-screen display.

So no, he's not knee-jerking: It was widely panned by popular media as being a patent for rounded edges. That was the substantive issue in the German lawsuit with Samsung v. Apple, where their Galaxy looked "too similar" to the Apple device. What you're defending, sir, is not an innovation in techology, but a company with the largest market capitalization on the planet attempting to remove all the other players from the market by patenting the only practical form-factor for this type of device. There is no innovation. It's totally business. As to the reason you're defending it, I suspect religious beliefs, caused in large part by marketing and having no actual basis in reality.

To put it a bit differently, Coca-Cola has a design patent covering their iconic bottle shape, yet no one is suggesting that Coca-Cola has a patent on all curved bottles just because their design patent includes curves as one of its claims.

Umm, you're kidding, right? You've just cited the quintessential example of design patents [] . I mean, of all the ones you could have chosen, you've chosen the single most cited-example found in graphics design. You couldn't have derped your argument in a more epic fashion if you'd done it while screaming naked in the street.

To infringe, you'd have to include not just curves in your bottle design, but curves that matched the other claims and diagrams presented in their design patent before you'd be infringing on their patent.

See above. The curves in the bottle design was the sole thing patented.

Similarly, Apple's infamous iPhone patent that included rounded corners as one of its claims also included a number of other claims as well ...

Except it didn't, see above.

For infringement to take place, ALL of those claims would be considered together, rather than just the uniform rounded corners claim.

ALL [emphasis yours] actually equals ONE [emphasis mine] in this case. No really. It is totally just that. I'm sorry if you weren't paying attention, but I mean, who can when you're so busy fanboying that you fail at your argument so spectacularly we should build a monument to your derp.


girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43521959)

This is not a troll. These are factual statements. You do not get to moderate -1 "disagree". Suck it up, cupcakes, and deal with the fact that Apple is a business, not a religion.


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522035)

I'm sure your ad hominem attack is very "factual." Maybe they aren't so much disagreeing with you as thinking you're a raving loon.


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522157)

Perhaps you wouldn't get negative moderation if you refrained from personal attacks?


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522249)

Waaaaahh Butthurt...


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43524573)

Suck it up, cupcakes, and deal with the fact that Apple is a business, not a religion.

BLASPHEMY!!! How dare this witch sully the name of the great and omnipotent Jobs! Burn her! Tie her to the stake and BURN HER!!


Not a troll, seconded (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522131)

He lays out a clear argument as to why the Apple claim *is* essentially about rounded corners, why GGP was completely wrong about coke's design patent and it's not an ad-hominen attack as a commenter below tries to mislead you into believing.

I think Apple Fanbois want to suppress his comment, and some have mod points.

Re:Not a troll, seconded (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43522341)

Since you appear to have understood his argument, could you explain why I "was completely wrong about [C]oke's design patent"? Because as far as I can tell, he didn't actually point out anything specific at all. He just accused me of not realizing I was citing something famous (he was wrong; I chose it because it's famous) and then said I derped, without citing anything to contradict me at all.

I'm genuinely interested in being corrected, particularly on that point.

And his post is ad hominem (he accuses me of derping severely enough that we should build a monument and you don't think he's attacking me personally?), but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed out-of-hand. For instance, his claim that the design patent he cited was only about rounded corners was an interesting one that was worth discussing, though I believe he was incorrect regarding it, since he failed to consider the other claims that were clearly presented in the diagrams.

I do agree that he was unfairly down-modded, however, and rather quickly at that. Even though he and I disagree, I think that's one of the best parts about Slashdot. I just wish he could present his case more factually so that I might actually learn something and end my fanboying ways. ;)

Re:Not a troll, seconded (1)

Hunter Shoptaw (2655515) | about a year ago | (#43524791)

A bit off topic, but I find it interesting that you seem to think the commenter named "girlintrainging" is automatically a guy, when I see very little evidence of it.

Re:Not a troll, seconded (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43524971)

I merely chose to use the same pronoun that the previous commenter used, so as to avoid confusion.


girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522207)

This is not a troll. These are factual statements. You do not get to moderate -1 "disagree". Suck it up, cupcakes, and deal with the fact that Apple is a business, not a religion.

Go ahead, mod me down. I got karma to burn and an army of you fanboys can't silence me.


BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43523427)

It is a troll. They are incorrect statements. You don't seem to understand that design patents are valid.

Re:Tech can be obvious (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43522297)

I do agree you should not have been modded down. Contrary to what some might think (you included, apparently) since I defended Apple here, I actually prefer it when people correct errors that I make in my statements, or offer some well-considered dissension.

That said, I do disagree with you. You seem to be under the incorrect belief that the design patent you've cited is the relevant one when it comes to the rounded corners meme. It isn't. That one's for the iPad mini and was issued late last year. The iPhone design patents are what started the rounded corners meme and are what was being referenced. Regardless, the reason you're not correct about that patent is because the details of those diagrams constitute claims that are legally binding. As such, for a competing product to be infringing, it would need to be infringing on the circular corners, flat face and back, the shape of the tapered edge that leads to the rear case, etc., etc., etc.. So, yes, that design patent does contain quite a bit more than just rounded corners. I do consider myself an Apple fanboy, but I do my best to be fair.

Regarding Coca-Cola. your ad hominem paragraph doesn't seem to contain any specific, factual claims that contradict anything I said. In fact, I have no idea what precisely you're disagreeing with, since you resorted to attacking me instead of citing something in particular that you disagreed with. The fact is, I chose it specifically because it's the most famous example and I wanted to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about. I'm glad you're aware that it's famous as well, but I'm disappointed that you missed my point.

The Coca-Cola bottle design patent includes a diagram of the specific curves that are claimed, so while "curves" were indeed claimed in the design patent, it wasn't just "curves": it was THOSE curves, and as such, other bottlers were fully capable of making bottles with curved sides, so long as they were distinct from Coca-Cola's bottles. That was my point, since the same is true with Apple's design patents (though I'll readily agree that some of them are rather vague/broad, including the one you've cited). Other companies would not only need to be infringing on the curves that Apple chose, but also on the other features (e.g. in the iPad mini design patent you cited, they'd also have to have the flat front and back and the curved sides that taper into the back, among other traits). Microsoft made a big deal about their 22-degree chamfered edges on the Surface line, which elegantly gets around all of Apple's design patents, even if the other traits are the same. Other companies only need to change one trait significantly in order to circumvent those design patents.

As for the claim that Apple's patent didn't contain anything else, I've already addressed that point, and if you look through some of the various iPhone design patents, you can see that the same arguments I've made already would apply to them as well. Here are some of them: [] [] []

Long story short, you seem to have accused me of derping on one point and automatically being wrong, then dismissed everything after that as being wrong as well, even though you never said why I was wrong in the first place. I'd actually be very eager to hear why you thought I was wrong about Coke.

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43522385)

That was my point, since the same is true with Apple's design patents (though I'll readily agree that some of them are rather vague/broad, including the one you've cited).

I won't disagree with any of the other statements you've made, because frankly, it's a defensible position. It's not the best one, in my opinion, but a reasonable person can lay claim to it. But this statement you've made right here goes to the very heart of the matter: If it's vague and overly broad, then the patent shouldn't have been granted. And the patent Apple was granted was vague, and it was overly broad, and as a result it's been dragged through our court system (and that of many other countries), costing you, me, and every other taxpayer in many different countries.

Which just underscores that this isn't a clear-cut issue; You can't say Apple's in the clear, anymore than you can say Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened. We wouldn't be having this conversation. We wouldn't have to disagree, because it would have been the optimal case.

I've already addressed that point, and if you look through some of the various iPhone design patents, you can see that the same arguments I've made already would apply to them as well.

Which is fine, but irrelevant. We're talking about the so-called "rounded edges" patent/design. The argument you're making may very well be valid in those cases, but that's not the case we're talking about.

Long story short, you seem to have accused me of derping on one point and automatically being wrong, then dismissed everything after that as being wrong as well, even though you never said why I was wrong in the first place. I'd actually be very eager to hear why you thought I was wrong about Coke.

At the time Coca-Cola applied for the patent, bottles just didn't look like that; The bottle in the patent is nothing like the coke bottles used today, which still have curves, but subdued considerably from the original design. That made the design unique, and it wasn't directly connected to its function, which was the storage and transport of a beverage. As such, the design wasn't purely functional. In the Apple case, the very design itself is functional -- it's a giant LCD panel with a rear plate, and in between is the computer. It's about the only form factor that makes any sense for a device that is designed to be (a) portable and (b) interacted with only by touch screen. Apple didn't take more than maybe a half-step away from the "purely functional" aspect of the device; Anyone who designed something similar would arrive at a device that looked more or less like the one Apple did. There's nothing unique, special, or distinctive, about Apple's design. Which is why it is very different from the quintessential example of the coke bottle.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43522439)

I'll definitely agree with you in regards to the iPad mini design patent not being distinctive enough (and distinctiveness is the important measure to consider) and Apple not being entirely in the clear. That said, it's worth pointing out that design patents aren't subject to the "is it obvious" tests and the like that typical patents are subject to, which is somewhat unfortunate. I do believe, however, that the original iPhone design patents were rather distinctive in nature at the time they were filed.

As for the relevancy of the arguments I was making, I was pointing out that the rounded edges design patent idea actually started with those iPhone design patents. The iPad mini design patent you cited came years later and didn't get picked up by the press until three months after the Samsung case was "concluded", hence why I was trying to go back to the rounded edges design patents that started it all.

Anyway, thanks for replying. I definitely understand what you were getting at a lot better now, and I can agree with quite a bit of it to varying degrees.

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about a year ago | (#43523325)

"If the patent had been more narrowly-defined and was about a unique and easily-recognizable design, none of this would have happened"

But that is precisely what is happening. I don't see Apple suing Nokia over the Lumia 520, yet that phone has all of the same features being discussed - rounded corners, smoothed back, etc.

No one could claim with a straight face that anyone would ever confuse a Lumia for an iPhone. Could you make the same claim for the original Galaxy S?

It seems to me that everyone that's actually involved in the case has no problem understanding what "distinctive" means, and conversely, when there is the suspicion of design infringement. The only comprehension issues appear to be here in the peanut galleries. Yet the accusations of known-nothingness are always pointed in the opposite direction.

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43524069)

Why would anyone sue for a device with such miniscule marketshare and so far out of the public consciousness?

Only reason why Samsung was sued is due to popularity.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43523465)

then the patent shouldn't have been granted...
the patent Apple was granted was vague...
If the patent had been more narrowly-defined...
We're talking about the so-called "rounded edges" patent/design....
At the time Coca-Cola applied for the patent, bottles just didn't look like that

Time and time again, you confuse "patents" with "design patents". Pretty much as all the people do that talk about Apple patenting rectangles. A "design patent" is not at all the same thing as a patent.

Re: Tech can be obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523221)

I'm getting tired of this US propensity to use 'sir' when telling someone off. It's like a thin veneer of sugar on a turd. If you want to disagree politely, do so. Throwing in the occasional 'sir' doesn't do it and makes me feel like I'm watching a Jack Ryan film.

Re: Tech can be obvious (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#43523523)

You, sir, are wrong.

It's an English affectation rather than belonging to our American cousins over the pond.

Re:Tech can be obvious (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43523415)

Umm, you're kidding, right? You've just cited the quintessential example of design patents []. I mean, of all the ones you could have chosen, you've chosen the single most cited-example found in graphics design. You couldn't have derped your argument in a more epic fashion if you'd done it while screaming naked in the street.

Do what? You're criticising someone for quoting the classic case of design patents? Are you stupid?

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

thoromyr (673646) | about a year ago | (#43524571)

a good post, but a point that seems to be missed here: the design patents are intended to allow broad coverage of appearance in a bid to create a revenue stream from the filings.

In a distinctly related topic is the established companies use of patents (supposedly FRAND, but refused to Apple) to try and prevent APple from ever releasing the iPhone. Apple figured they had the law on their side and proceded and the lawsuit proceded and... we end up with stupid, obvious patents being used on both sides. I say "stupid and obvious" because in most cases that is exactly what patents are. (Large) companies encourage employees to file patents (assigned to the company of course). Microsoft was asleep for a long time on this subject, but finally woke up.

Ridiculous patents is not an Apple, or Microsoft, or IBM or Intel or AMD or Samsung or Motorola thing -- it is all of them. Patents are used to suppress competition by raising a barrier for entry into a market. Intel and AMD cross license patents -- great, and bully for them. A significant reason *why* is because no one else can get into the game of making desktop CPUs -- you literally can't afford their patents.

When the EU decided to make money by creating "design patents" companies like Apple and Samsung are faced with a choice: file a patent on your product (and pay the fee to do so) or be sued for infringement if there is a turf war. Apple chose to file design patents in the EU, Samsung did not. In the end, Apple lost that IIRC but it might be interesting to see if Samsung now pays the EU protection money by filing design patents there.

While Apple's "rounded corners" design patent was obnoxious they are far from the only company to file for design patents in the EU, and they are certainly not the only company to use "stupid and obvious" patents when fighting against another company. In the topic at hand, Morotorola's patent was ruled as "obvious".

In sum: patents serve two purposes:

1) a revenue stream for the government issuing them

2) reduce competition by raising a barrier to entry in a market

But people are distracted by the claimed purpose "to promote invention/protect inventor's rights" and argue about merit rather than realizing they have been duped.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521997)

Rounded corners have been around damn near forever. My desk has rounded corners so if someone accidentally walks into it, you don't slice your leg open. Likewise, I have radios and communication equipment, where there are (physical) buttons, set in a physical keypad, where both the buttons and the keypad have rounded corners. If you yelp about 'distinctive design', I will yelp about prior art! I also have GUI software from 1985 that has rounded corners (more prior art). I have also seen Motorola telephones with keypad buttons and keypads both with rounded corners (more prior art). Apple should have got nothing, and deserves nothing. Clearly the judge was either intoxicated or bribed (or both).

Re:Tech can be obvious (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521047)

Well of course round corners aren't patentable. That's why Apple didn't try to patent them. You apparently need some education (

Re:Tech can be obvious (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521129)

but round corners can't?

Look, if Apple used pointy corners on their stuff then we'd hurt our hands when we held it wrong.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#43521171)

apple should sue the person who invented the wheel

Re:Tech can be obvious (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43522403)

Start with a square wheel and round the corners.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#43522771)

trees are obviously in violation... who will represent them in court?

...obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521243)

WAIT a minute...

This is a Large Corporation with a Patent.
OMG ! The Patent was called 'obvious' ?!?!'s a Large Corporation ... Patent ...the Patent was called ... 'obvious' ?

In What MAD UNIVERSE do I find myself?
Such un-natural Eldrich Horror! Cthulhu save-us-all... AHHRGH....

  strange.. my AC CAPCHA is "witches"

Re:...obvious (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43521597)

They sued another very large corporation. Apple has lots of bad ass lawyers too unlike the little people these assholes usually beat up on.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43521259)

but round corners can't?

Bevelling is pretty advanced stuff for the Patent Office. Didn't really exist until, you know, about 2000 BC. Proximity sensors, on the other hand, has been around since we grew eyeballs. So I guess the takeaway here is, the Patent Office is in the stone age.

Re:Tech can be obvious (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43521389)

Design patents operate under different principles from regular patents, and something that a lot of folks here seem to be ignoring is that the claims made in design patents are considered in whole, rather than one at a time in a vacuum. Put differently, while Apple does have a few design patents that mention rounded corners in them, they're mentioned as one claim among many in those design patents. A competing product would be measured up against all of the claims, rather than just the rounded corner one, in order to determine if infringement was occurring. So if you had a phone with uniform rounded corners that didn't match any of the other claims in the patent, you'd be perfectly fine since the rounded corners, by themselves, are not in any way distinctive.

But hey, it's fun to repeat a meme that makes you look ignorant on the subject, because Apple.

Re:Tech can be obvious (4, Interesting)

Grieviant (1598761) | about a year ago | (#43521571)

By asserting that the 'rounded corners' critique is invalidated simply by pointing to multiple claims in a design patent, you might be the one repeating an ignorant meme here. If NONE of the claimed attributes are unique on their own (rounded corners, beveling, device face comprised mostly of screen, small number of buttons, rectangular grid of icons, etc.) and various combinations of them have been widely used in other electronic devices over the past 50 years, how does one magically end up with a truly unique design? Piling up on dozens of commonplace look-and-feel features does not increase uniqueness. It seems more like an attempt to limit competition by monopolizing a basic design that the industry is already converging on.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

Wovel (964431) | about a year ago | (#43522141)

You are arguing against the nature of design patents While that may be a valid argument, all Apple can do is follow the laws that exist today. Not the laws as you wish them to be.

Re:Tech can be obvious (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43522393)

You make a good point, but that's simply not how design patents work. They don't work on the principle of uniqueness, but rather on that of distinctiveness. If some combination of elements is distinctive enough, a design patent can be issued. And when you go back and look at, say, the original iPhone design patents, that design was extremely distinctive at the time it was filed, even though very few, if any, of its traits were truly unique. In contrast, the more recent iPad mini design patent that was issued is rather vague and indistinct, if I have to be honest.

Anyway, perhaps in an ideal world they might function in the way you've described, but in the meantime I don't see how it's ignorant for me to explain the way that a system functions in the real world.

It is just rounded corners (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43522483)

By asserting that the 'rounded corners' critique is invalidated simply by pointing to multiple claims in a design patent, you might be the one repeating an ignorant meme here

Except its not even remotely true these are the design patents [] and [] for your information the dotted lines are just there to add context so ignore them.

Link to an article for those who don't have firefox []

Show me where it discusses the other generic things you randomly add. In fact specifically most of those "beveling, device face comprised mostly of screen, small number of buttons" are deliberately *NOT* part of the patent (they are only there for context). and icons!! on a phone unheard of on an electronics device in 2009!!!

Your post is a lie.

Re:Tech can be obvious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523543)

Yeah, so Motorola wasted untold time and money with a frivolous lawsuit based on what is now called an obvious patent, and Apple's the bad guy in this thing?

Can you fandroids please just fuck off already?

Agatinst against ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43520903)

How many "against" should be used

Re:Agatinst against ?? (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#43521013)

Clearly that's a type in the title. It should read, "Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Antagonist Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents".

Re:Agatinst against ?? (4, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43521039)

Clearly that's a typo in the first senteance. It should read Clearly that's a typo in the first sentence.

Re:Agatinst against ?? (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#43521071)

I'm not the only one with a typo in the first sentence.

Re:Agatinst against ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521185)

But you're the only one without a sense of humor, observational skills, and a working sarcasm detector.

Re:Agatinst against ?? (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#43521341)

What typo, "senteance"?

senteance, n.
1) Grammatical structure composed by cognizant individual.
2) Punishment wherein the punished is confined to a dim candle-lit room inhabited by disembodied souls.

Re:Agatinst against ?? (1)

Wovel (964431) | about a year ago | (#43522149)

Ignoring your funny blunder, you also apparently don't understand any of the facts in the story.

Re:Agatinst against ?? (1)

Goaway (82658) | about a year ago | (#43523331)

Getting sued for patent infringement makes you an antagonist. Thanks, Slashdot logic!

Typo In Headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43520931)

Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Against Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents

Can you find it? I can.

Re:Typo In Headline (2)

Rideak (180158) | about a year ago | (#43520949)

Oops my bad. Been on slashdot for more than 13 years you'd think i'd be more careful with my first submission haha.

Re:Typo In Headline (3, Funny)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43521033)

You'd also think that the site had editors.

Re:Typo In Headline (5, Funny)

Demize (55201) | about a year ago | (#43521065)

Not if you've been here for 13 years...

Re:Typo In Headline (2)

Rideak (180158) | about a year ago | (#43521153)

Actually I'm pretty sure I copy/pasted the headline from the article, which means it was probably the editor who inserted the typo in the first place haha.

Re:Typo In Headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521387)

I'm pretty sure it was added as a public service, so we could have a nice refreshing bash of the useless editing, instead of arguing with ignorant chumps who think Apple has patented round corners.

Re:Typo In Headline (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43521491)

So now that Dice owns Slashdot, when are they going to outsource all the editing jobs to India?

At least then we could have some editors who speak English...

Re:Typo In Headline (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43523001)

Not if you've been here for 13 years...

Yeah. The editors used to be a pair of 7 line perl scripts, but now that Slashdot is under new management, they've had to cut back... now it's just one 7 line perl script.

Re:Typo In Headline (4, Funny)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | about a year ago | (#43520987)

I cannot find find it :/

Re:Typo In Headline (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | about a year ago | (#43521189)

Try against ?

Strategy (4, Interesting)

Pirulo (621010) | about a year ago | (#43520951)

Without reading the whole article. I believe that with all the muscle that Google (Motorola) could put behind this claim, the case has more to do with strategy. It's a case to better loose and then later refer to. As the first poster said, -"Tech can be obvious but round corners can't?"

Re:Strategy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521057)

A better strategy is to keep your patents tight, instead of loose.

Re:Strategy (1)

Pirulo (621010) | about a year ago | (#43521323)

Yep, I had that wtf moment after I clicked the submit button.

Re:Strategy (2, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43521335)

That's a brilliant strategy -- spend 12 billion on a has-been phone manufacturer and then lose all the patent lawsuits you file.

Re:Strategy (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43521609)

Damn. That says it all.

Re:Strategy (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about a year ago | (#43523055)

As the first poster said, -"Tech can be obvious but round corners can't?"

Worth noting that the practise of putting a proximity sensor in a touch screen phone to turn the screen off when you make a call was so obvious, not a single Windows Mobile phone launched by HTC, Samsung or Motorola in Europe prior to June 2007 had one.

Re:Strategy (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43523563)

Well, that's definitely a unique strategy - buy a washed up radio and phone manufacturer that most consumers won't buy a product from again, as practically everyone has been burned by a slip-shod Motorola product in the past, for a shload of money in order to gain a patent portfolio that can be used to strike back at your chief rival; and then proceed lose on every single count and have those patents invalidated as obvious after paying for 2.5 years of lawyer lawyer retainers and court costs.

They'll never see that one coming!

Good (1)

sking (42926) | about a year ago | (#43521023)

Maybe things are changing.

Re:Good (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43521637)

No. Not really. It's just that Apple is a little too big to be picking on with this stupid shit. Motorola should have used Microsoft's strategy of suing smaller companies first to build up to suing bigger ones. They jumped straight at Apple and got slapped down. You notice that Microsoft didn't jump straight at Google over Android but instead is attacking their manufacturing partners who are happy to pay protection money to get them to go away. If they had sued Google then Google would have whistled up their lawyers and slapped Microsoft down.

Re:Good (2)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a year ago | (#43521885)

Motorola should have used Microsoft's strategy of suing smaller companies first to build up to suing bigger ones

So who was Google/Motorola going to sue? Other Android manufacturers?

Re:Good (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | about a year ago | (#43523485)

Just to point out - Apple sued first & these claims were part of the counter suit.

Who should Google buy now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521161)

I'm wondering who Google should buy now since the Motorola card failed? RIMM? Sony? They need to get patents some how because they don't create anything to patent? Only way they will get patents is to buy someone for their patents like they did Motorola!

Re:Who should Google buy now? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43521649)

I haven't noticed lack of creating a product stopping anyone from patenting something. Lots of companies patent things and never create anything at all.

Re:Who should Google buy now? (1)

cashxx (1882268) | about a year ago | (#43521775)

I don't think you understood what I was going after.......The only reason Google bought Motorola was for the patents and to have ammo against Apple. Well that just failed, who should they buy next so they can get their patents?

Re:Who should Google buy now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522659)

Nokia? A patent portofolio like no other (ok, maybe qualcomm) when it comes to mobile phones.

They would also get really good tech. Nokia phones are only lacking on the software side, hardware is still the best on market.

Nokia not looking too pretty (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#43522701)

Nokia phones are only lacking on the software side, hardware is still the best on market.

Unfortunately Nokia sold all its factories, and moved production to China. In an attempt to copy Apples business model. In that move the quality of hardware has took a dive. Nokia is not a well company, and unfortunately it looks terminal.

Error! (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43521287)

Motorola Loses ITC Case Against Against Apple for Proximity Sensor Patents

Error: Cyclic Redundancy Check failed while parsing headline.

Re:Error! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43522255)

I dunno, your check seems a bit off: It had plenty of redundancy to me, try another cycle?

Re:Error! (1)

pherthyl (445706) | about a year ago | (#43522257)

Huh? Makes perfect sense to me. Maybe the reading comprehension test failed.

Apple is better than Motorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43521453)

In fact, Apple is better than every other cell phone manufacturer. They produce products that EVERYONE loves and wants to have. America knows this. Apple knows this. And the ITC knows this.

That is why the ITC squashed Motorola's attempt to defame the Apple name.

Apple probably also slipped a few strategic personnel a couple $10,000 bills. I don't know about you guys, but I can be easily corrupted by money, drugs, and loose women (or men, depending on my mood). I doubt that anyone else in the world is like me, though.

Re:Apple is better than Motorola (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43521655)

I bet instead of money they gave them their own exclusive iPhone 6's. That would do it.

Re:Apple is better than Motorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43523575)

Yeah, because it's clear that the only way Apple could have won this thing is through bribery.

Are you high?

Should not obvious patents be removed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522215)

Apple probably also slipped a few strategic personnel a couple $10,000 bills.

If it were Apple's patents that were struck down you'd be cheering for joy at the obvious patents having fallen.

Instead we find you arguing that an obvious patent should have been allowed to stand and only bribery brought it to ruin. Why? FUCKING APPLE is why.

Sure, that makes so much sense!

Apple Haters would be slightly tolerable as human beings if they did not end up to a man being the most obnoxious hypocritical assholes to walk the earth.

Administrative ruling (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#43521493)

While I am always happy to see obvious patent ruled as invalid, I wonder if it is the job of an administrative commission to do that job.

Re:Administrative ruling (1)

frinkster (149158) | about a year ago | (#43525173)

While I am always happy to see obvious patent ruled as invalid, I wonder if it is the job of an administrative commission to do that job.

It's only invalid in the sense that the ITC won't do anything about it.

But the real issue is that an administrative commission is proving to be completely gutless when it comes to two American companies fighting each other. They have gone in circles for around 3 years now trying to figure out how to not do anything at all (while the lawyers on both sides have collected many millions of dollars in fees). The sole remedy available when you file an ITC case is a ban on importation and the ITC is simply unwilling to ban importation of popular products because they don't want to create any political backlash.

If there ever was any proof that giving federal judges a lifetime appointment to protect them from politics as much as possible, this is it

Patents (1)

Cant use a slash wtf (1973166) | about a year ago | (#43522199)

I can understand the thought behind the ruling, but I have to say I'm really against against against against against against.

The Show Must Must Must Go On! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43522287)

This is Max Headroom, live on Net-Net-Net-Network 23, because what I want to know is, who's gonna stop this kind of wholesale artic--killing-ing-ing-ing. Killing. It's time that Slashdot took a stand - a stand - a *stand* on this kind of headline murder. Murder. Murder. Preferably against it.

The Insanity of "Obviousness" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43522861)

So this was thrown out as being obvious and non-inovative according to the foss article.

I really dont understand this.. its only obvious and non-inovating because MOTOROLA has had this operation in the wild for many years.. And yes, it was patented.
This is an example of a patent with no prior art being thrown out of court because its been around a while.. Im sorry, but this is nonsense.

The previous apple lawsuits about multitouch, slide to unlock, and design "rounded corners" and everything ALL have examples of prior art which existed PRIOR to the patent being filed. These apple patents ARE invalid, but have not been ruled as such. So what I dont understand is... what the hell is going on here? Why is the legal system so obviously biassed towards apple? am I missing something?

Re:The Insanity of "Obviousness" (1)

texas neuron (710330) | about a year ago | (#43524187)

Yes you are missing something. A proximity sensor itself is not obvious but was already covered by another Motorola patent ( The extension from the prior patent to the new patent is what is obvious. Motorola could sue based upon the prior patent if they had not let it expire.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>